Re: ncat 5.10BETA handling of -l -p is not compatible with nc-1.10

[Kris Katterjohn <katterjohn () gmail com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/10/2010 10:58 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Sunday 10 January 2010 18:11, Kris Katterjohn wrote:
> > On 01/10/2010 09:57 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > On Sunday 10 January 2010 09:47, Kris Katterjohn wrote:
> > > > > Do you understand why compatibility is important?
> > > > Do you understand why convenience is important?  We as authors and users
> > > > shouldn't be stuck with command arguments from over a decade ago
> > > You answered my question. You do not understand why compatibility
> > > is important. Thank God other depelopers do, and, for example,
> > > coreutils dd is not going to become "more convenient" and ditch
> > > its "stupid and non-standard" if=FILE style parameters.
> > I didn't realize the traditional nc was ever as ubiquitous as dd.
>
> Whether nc or dd is more widely used utility does not appear to be
> relevant to the discussion.

It seemed you compared changing nc's arguments to changing dd's.  dd is
everywhere and as been around for a very long time.  nc hasn't.  That seems
pretty relevant.

> > Out of 
> > curiosity, how many Linux distros, BSDs and anything else install *Hobbit*'s
> > nc by default over something like OpenBSD nc?
>
> I don't know. Anyway, OpenBSD, GNU and Nmap's implementations are now
> *mutually* incompatible, thus claiming that old netcat is dead and buried
> does not help one iota

You want compatibility with the traditional netcat and yet its rarely
installed by default.  When modern, incompatible netcats are installed in much
greater numbers than traditional nc, how is changing ncat going to accomplish
anything?

> - the incompatibility among "modern" netcats
> still exists and is a problem for admins who write script using nc.

Ncat isn't even named nc.  That seems pretty clear to me.

Anyway, wouldn't many people who script with nc be using more modern arguments
since it's not the traditional netcat that's often installed?

> How about a little respect towards the original author?
> Why not to keep stuff compatible relative to his version
> at least as a gesture of respect?

I thought this was about script authors and usability frustration?


Unless something changes, I'm finally done with this overgrown discussion.

Kris Katterjohn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=GkGn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/